Email this article to a friend

'I think the biggest challenge for the Republican Party is ridding itself of the neoconservative war hawks and corrupt cronyists that make up the establishment.'

Last year, the Tea Party helped change the course of the Republican Party when David Brat, an unknown economics professor, defeated House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in Virginia in the June 10, 2014, Republican primary, despite being outspent 40 to 1. Brat and his supporters (including Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham and grassroots Tea Party groups) unnerved the Republican Party by clearly demonstrating that the right wing could challenge any incumbent—and win. Brat’s victory energized the Republican Right, laying the groundwork for the continued harsh stance on immigration reform by Republican presidential candidates, a potential government shutdown over Planned Parenthood funding and the recent resignation of House Speaker John Boehner. Boehner, like Cantor, would have faced a Tea Party challenger, J.D. Winteregg, in his district’s Republican primary in March 2016.

Both Brat and Winteregg’s insurgent campaigns were managed by 24-year-old Zachary Werrell, a 2013 graduate of Haverford College. Werrell, a self-proclaimed hunter of RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), recently co-authored a book on the Brat campaign with fellow conservative activist Gray Delany. How to Bag a RINO: The Whiz Kids Who Brought Down House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is billed as a handbook for right-wing activists who want to challenge Republicans in primaries in order to “take back their party, and the country.” In These Times asked Werrell about his campaign experiences, his analysis of the Tea Party movement and his vision for the country.

What is a RINO, and how did you come to hunt them?

It’s used to describe lickspittle Republicans who are all but indistinguishable from Democrats. While they sometimes talk a good game on free markets, in practice they are given to cronyism and shady deal-making, if not outright corruption. They tend to be sickeningly beholden to the left/liberal media and unduly concerned with invites to fashionable dinner parties.

I was turned on to politics in high school by Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-Texas) 2008 presidential bid. As a hardcore libertarian, I was appalled by the lack of conviction and principle in the Republican establishment. I ultimately found myself on a career path dedicated to pushing these more moderate or outright liberal Republicans out of office.

What are the major lessons that you wanted to share in your book?

People need to know more about this historic upset than just the headlines. They need to see the inner workings, the struggles, the machinations, so that they too, may, unseat their RINO congressmen! This book is very much a how-to in narrative form. The biggest lesson is that being right is not enough to win. What was the difference between Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan? They were philosophically identical, but Reagan had a much better operation, and far more activists and organizations to help him.

What is the Tea Party movement to you? How has it been successful?

The Tea Party to me is less a cohesive philosophical bloc and more a general sentiment: “I am fed up with the Republicans, the Democrats, the government in general.” When I first got involved, it was a few random Ron Paul supporters literally throwing tea into bodies of water to make a statement. Its ranks were quickly filled out by more typical conservatives—the grassroots writ large. This sort of passion is useful in political races, because the most passionate are the most willing to work.

You talk about putting together a “highly motivated grassroots army” in Virginia. How would you describe your basic on-the-ground strategy to elect Dave Brat and defeat Eric Cantor?

One: Go to events where like-minded people might be. Two: Introduce Dave and sign them up as volunteers. Three: Get them to come door-knocking or phone-calling, or to host an event. Rinse and repeat. Given our funding disadvantage, we had to maximize the resource we did have—manpower.

During his last years in office, Cantor was disrupted frequently by protesters. What do you think of this tactic?

Protesting, in general terms, has never been of interest to me, but a well-organized and populated protest can be a great way to advance a narrative in the media. The Left has been very effective in this, and just because the Left uses a technique, it should not be off limits.

What are your biggest problems with the American Left?

I do not have a problem with the average liberal or leftist. My mother, bless her heart, is very much a liberal, along with my sisters. I do have a problem with the intellectual and political drivers of the Left. I view them as having a deeply un-American ideology, derived not from the Enlightenment and republican thought, but from Karl Marx and Antonio Gramsci. I view culture and civil society as being equally important as government in a republic—yes, we live in a republic, not a democracy. Marx and his intellectual ilk must be stopped. I see them as hostile to cultural institutions, which are the fundamental building blocks of America.

How do you see Marx and Gramsci’s influence as being harmful?

Marx had a vision of destroying the family, the churches and other cultural foundations to make way for the collective. Gramsci was more of a tactician. He said the way to enact communism was not violent revolution (the way his friends in the Soviet Union were going about it), but rather to destroy a society’s cultural moorings. This manifests itself today in movements such as the one forcing Catholic institutions to provide abortions. I am not a Catholic, but it is ridiculous that a Catholic organization is ordered to provide a service that is clearly not allowed in Catholic teachings. Remember, religious freedom created America, not the other way around.

How do you stop “Marx and his intellectual ilk”?

A breakdown of strong centralized government would help. I supported Scotland’s right to secede from the UK. The intellectual heirs of the Enlightenment have not come up with a good response to Marx et al., which is why their advance has been so steady for so long. There have been no great philosophers over the past 100 years, unless you include Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, etc., who have further developed Enlightenment thought.

I’ve seen you quote Saul Alinsky a fair amount. Is he an influence of yours?

He is not an intellectual influence of mine. His ideology was rotten to its core. However, he was a brilliant tactician, and I will use what works for my ends.

“Rotten to its core” in what way? It seems that his organizing theories are the embodiment of local control.

Anyone who wants to break down the fundamentals of society—family, culture and community—in order to gain political power is serving a rotten ideology.

It seems like the left wing is moving further left and the right wing further right, with the Tea Party largely responsible for the GOP’s rightward drift. As a Tea Party sympathizer, what do you think about our polarized politics today?

I disagree with the premise. The Tea Party is not driving this divide, it is an outgrowth—a chicken-and-egg question, if you will. Polarization happens from time to time in any functioning body politic. Sometimes it is slight, sometimes it is dramatic and sometimes it erupts into civil war. I do not think we are at that stage yet, but there is a great deal of tension in our society between the Enlightenment and Marx, between conservatives and liberals. A lot of that can be traced back to the decreasing reliance on localism and family or neighbor relations. This trend is driven, or at least exacerbated, by the rise of constant screen time and social media.

What are the biggest challenges and opportunities for the Republican Party in the near-and long-term future?

I think the biggest challenge for the Republican Party is ridding itself of the neoconservative war hawks and corrupt cronyists that make up the establishment. The biggest opportunity is embracing the philosophical roots of the party, either classical conservatism, libertarianism or some combination. When voters perceive you as an embodiment of a message, instead of a power-hungry empty suit, they believe you and get energized.

What about the Tea Party—what challenges and opportunities do you see?

I think the Tea Party has been so viciously maligned by the media that its biggest challenge is rebuilding its collective image, which is very hard for a decentralized grassroots movement. The biggest opportunity is harnessing the fact that the federal government is absolutely broken; the American voters are sick of the ruling elites; and there is a very strong anti-establishment movement bubbling up.

You were working on a primary campaign challenging Boehner from the right in Ohio. Do you think that played a role in his resignation?

We had polling showing Boehner to be in pretty bad shape in his district, and I am sure he had similar numbers. I think resigning was the honorable way to avoid being humiliated in Congress or in his home district, or both.

Where do you hope to see the nation in 20 years?

I would like to see a country that has decentralized some power back to the states, that is on a sustainable fiscal path (with a balanced budget and lower overall tax burden), that has renewed economic growth, and where individuals have rediscovered the power of local governance, instead of asking their congressman to fix every problem for them.

Devolving power back to the states seems like a big priority for you. Many on the Left point to federal decisions that made the country more equitable: the abolition of slavery, Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act, Obergefell v. Hodges, etc. Could those large-scale legal changes have happened otherwise?

Perhaps in an abstract sense, the federal government acted in an egalitarian way, and I think there are people who benefited. But remember, the federal government could just as easily do things you view as reprehensible. There have been equally bad decisions: Dred Scott, etc. The more localized the power, the better in the long run. Concentrated, distant power that is beyond reproach is extremely dangerous. Just because it has not done something harmful yet does not mean it will not.

The federal government has its rules set forth in plain English in the Constitution. Any power not specifically granted to the federal government is a power of the states or the people. The states are the laboratories of democracy.

If Washington state wants to be a socialist haven, let it, and if Texas wants to be, well, Texas, then let it be Texas. Do not try to take over the federal government and force your views upon the nation as a whole. It is toxic and dangerous. Let the people, their local officials and their state officials make these decisions. They are infinitely better at responding to the needs of their constituents than are the plutocrats in Washington and five lawyers in black robes.

WE do need to decentralize. But I disagree that states ought to be able to go socialist. At least not to the point where the Constitutional rights of state residents are violated. Full-blown socialism denies many of these rights.

Posted by D Guest on 2016-03-07 19:40:51

How about changing the title of the piece to: Meet the 24-Year-Old “RINO Hunter” On a Mission To Purge the GOP of Corrupt Actors

Posted by Chuck Norton on 2015-11-27 12:58:20

Attaboy.

Posted by Dave_Skinner on 2015-11-20 17:33:02

He talks about "society" so much that it makes me wonder what his response to Margaret Thatcher's statement that "there is no such thing as society"...But he would probably just give the same lame "I use what works" answer.

Posted by Scot Forsythe on 2015-11-19 22:56:44

ooh ...Black people in a public place...scaryyy!!!

Posted by Scot Forsythe on 2015-11-19 22:50:51

Nice strawman there - immigration policy is not the bedrock of "Dem-types" (whatever that is). Limited government is the very core of American Libertarianism. (One debt I do owe libertarians is that the act of parsing their pretzel logic has taught me just about all of the logical fallacies)

But, since you brought it up - Ask Libertarians about stricter and more enforced regulation on EMPLOYERS who hire undocumented immigrants. (Which would actually solve the problem - they come here for the jobs; if they can't get the jobs, then they won't come, ) See what the libertarians say.

It's almost as though they want to have their cake and eat it too - cheap labor without the burden of social services for the people who do that labor.

Posted by rfshunt on 2015-11-15 15:47:12

By that same token ask the Dem-types about IMMIGRATION and then you see what they are really about - swamping the country with cheap labor. That affects you more than any law, most likely.

Posted by kid_you_not on 2015-11-15 12:21:56

After all the embarrassing events at University of Missouri you folks still show your face? LOL! The mix of fraud and fascism is what YOUR side engages in.

Posted by kid_you_not on 2015-11-15 12:18:53

Would that include libel about things like Florida in 2000? Only thing that happened there was the Democrats tried and FAILED to steal an election by recounting the vote until they got what they wanted with the Democrat minions doing the counting.

Posted by kid_you_not on 2015-11-15 12:16:59

Well, he has evidence on his side. Look at Detroit or any other area taken over by Black welfare recipients. You know that doesn't work.

Posted by kid_you_not on 2015-11-15 12:15:27

There you go again--parroting your talking points from the talking heads.

Posted by Traveler51 on 2015-11-15 09:03:58

In the form of election fraud.

Posted by Traveler51 on 2015-11-15 09:02:40

We need equally hard, relentless prosecution of election fraud, i.e., Florida in 2000 and Kentucky last week, just two that are easy to recognize.

Posted by Traveler51 on 2015-11-15 09:00:32

You did not answer the questions I asked you.

How do you feel about a state forbidding fracking because of environmental concerns. Or setting the minimum wage in that state at $15/hr?

To be consistent with your previous remarks then you must support that, since that is within a state's powers and if that is that states decision they can rightfully "go with it" Yes?

Posted by rfshunt on 2015-11-14 20:13:51

You prefer to kill people through poverty.

Posted by smallbear on 2015-11-14 19:30:50

The elite few imposing their own standards on the many.How egalitarian of them.

Posted by smallbear on 2015-11-14 19:29:48

You know nothing of liberalism. Nothing, whatsoever.

Posted by smallbear on 2015-11-14 19:27:12

Without America to protect it, there would be no religious freedom, and in fact, the rise of the religious right now threatens religious freedom more than at any time in this country's history.

Posted by smallbear on 2015-11-14 19:24:38

Mass voting does not equal 'TRILLIONS in debt.'That only occurs when an entitled elite has control of the spending.

Posted by smallbear on 2015-11-14 19:20:12

Untrue and a blatant lie.

Posted by smallbear on 2015-11-14 19:18:30

"The thing is voter fraud does not occur at any statically significant degree."

that is a lie that John Roberts buys and others, like you, perpetuate.

It's not true. The right wing goes to great lengths to disenfranchise anybody who might vote against them.

Posted by smallbear on 2015-11-14 19:18:02

I repeat: The proper venue for interpretation of the Constitution is the Supreme Court, not some self-appointed private judge such as yourself. If you think you have a case, bring it before the court. I wish you the best of luck in forcing your private interpretation on the court; something tells me that they don't like being called ignorant in their area of expertise.

Posted by GA on 2015-11-14 17:14:11

Murdering your baby in the womb is the antithesis of libertarianism. You are stealing somebody else's liberty and you are unilaterally allowing the state to dehumanize a segment of the population for the sole purpose of murdering them. This is what you support and what I'm opposed to.

Posted by Elegy4358 on 2015-11-14 17:03:28

GA, it is frightening how incredibly constitutionally ignorant you and 75% of voters are. I mean, it turns my stomach that you people have no clue what a Constitutional republic entails and you guys are proof that there needs to be some type of test before being allowed to vote.

The federal gov't was granted less than 20 powers by the states in the Constitution. EVERYTHING else belongs to the states. Anything outside of those few powers that DC intrudes on is null and void from the outset, the states just need to refuse to comply just as WA, OR and AK have done with marijuana and how sherriffs are refusing to comply with DC gun laws, etc. I beg you, please don't vote anymore.

Posted by Elegy4358 on 2015-11-14 17:01:44

Yes, Reagan's talk was way better than his actions, especially when it came to the national debt. If more Republicans were intellectually honest, they would hold themselves to the Calvin Coolidge standard of small government!

Posted by Saoirse_Lass on 2015-11-14 10:12:54

Werrell, like all libertarians, wants to cut taxes. At the same time, he says, "The more localized the power, the better in the long run" We have an example here in California of how this doesn't work. In 1978 we put a strict limit on property taxes (Prop. 13). Since the main use of property taxes is to pay for public education, our schools started losing funding. So they turned to our state government for help. The result: cutting taxes led to a larger centralized state government and took power away from local governments. Yes, this was at the state level, but California is the eighth largest economy in the world. If he is consistent, Werrell would also like to see power at the state level passed to the local governments.

By the way, I was only a bit older than Werrell when Prop. 13 passed. Property values, and hence property taxes, were sky rocketing. I had very mixed feelings about it. I really don't recall which way I finally voted. And I have certainly enjoyed the personal benefits I've derived from the law. But it took quite a few years for us to realize what the effects really were --- a huge shift of power from our communities to our centralized state government. When I was young, I thought that I had all the answers. Now I find myself saying the same things as my late father. Yes, studying history is worthwhile.

Posted by rplantz on 2015-11-14 10:12:00

The Republican party is now on the same trajectory as the Whig party. They are too far to the right, controlled by an aging base that is dying off and more concerned with purity than winning.

All that is needed is for a new party to emerge from the left, so that the Democratic party can become the rightmost party and the Republican party can fall off the earth.

Posted by Scott Lindsey on 2015-11-14 08:26:21

Projection, sheer projection.

Posted by GA on 2015-11-14 04:33:01

Difficult problems are no excuse for impossible solutions.

Posted by GA on 2015-11-14 04:31:52

Sounds very much like sedition to me. The states do not have the right to judge whether a federal law is constitutional or not. That's what the Supreme Court is for.

Posted by GA on 2015-11-14 04:29:14

This is the classic libertarian dodge when caught out in a glaring inconsistency. Ron Paul used it to try to avoid criticism about his stand on abortion.

The issue is not one of jurisdiction. Either you are for government over-reach and interference into the contractual negotiations of workers or you aren't. State governments are...wait for it...still governments.

Let's hear how you feel about a state forbidding fracking because of environment concerns. Or setting the minimum wage in that state at $15/hr Alll warm and fuzzy about those things, are you?

Posted by rfshunt on 2015-11-13 23:04:27

Ah yes, the great Ronald Reagan. The first president to truly blow up the national debt by cutting taxes and increasing spending. True-blue RINO, that one. I am flummoxed why he is so deified on the Right - he had a bunch of good soundbytes, but as much set the stage for later overspending as Truman did for starting wars without Congressional approval.

Posted by Mork on 2015-11-13 21:56:23

My only question is what his parents did wrong to create this conservative disgrace of a human being. A conservative at 24?!?

Posted by dave on 2015-11-13 20:59:46

I see you are the low-information voter type.

Posted by dave on 2015-11-13 20:58:50

What an detestable comment. Nothing for @A to "parrot". Try thinking for yourself.

Posted by dave on 2015-11-13 20:57:17

That is a lie, the conservatives are specifically out to disenfranchise voters, because they have already realized that the more people that vote in an election, the more likely the conservative candidate is to lose.

Additionally, it may not be too expensive FOR YOU, but it is for plenty of others.

Posted by dave on 2015-11-13 20:56:18

You're confusing federal powers that were specifically granted to the federal gov't by the states with state powers. If a state wants to go with right to work, it's their decision.

Posted by Elegy4358 on 2015-11-13 19:48:25

These people need an authority figure to control and regulate every aspect of their lives. Modern day American liberalism is a worldview based on pure emotion, most proponents are overgrown children. They cannot grasp the concept of self governance, it scares them. It's frightening that 1/3 of this Republic subscribes to that idiotic worldview.

Posted by Elegy4358 on 2015-11-13 19:46:17

I really couldn't care less about DC, it's a waste of time and a lost cause. I want to see liberty minded individuals in every local office from Sheriff to Governor. The states could make DC irrelevent overnight by flexing their 10th amendment muscle and simply refusing to comply/nullifying unconstitutional federal law. I have a feeling we'll be seeing alot of that with Matt Bevin, KY. He's a big proponent of nullification.

Posted by Elegy4358 on 2015-11-13 19:43:18

Only voter fraud found so far was by republicans

Posted by Corey Mondello on 2015-11-13 19:14:38

Talk to many libertarians about what they want government to be limited *to* and they will give you a short list that includes military defense, police protection and the enforcement of contracts (plus some other things)

Then ask them what they think of so-called "right-to-work" laws, where the government decides what KIND of contracts workers can negotiate with their employers. That's when you will discover the true agenda of many of them. So many will endorse this kind of government over-reach - even though it runs counter what they say their principles are. For many of them, siding with business against workers is more important than any principle they lay claim to.

Many, many libertarians turn out to be simply republicans that want to smoke dope.

Posted by rfshunt on 2015-11-13 19:04:21

Godspeed to this young man! The RINO establishment hacks have bankrupted the Republican Party at the highest levels, and only the work of young grassroots conservative activists will turn it around. The Republican Party needs to stand strong for liberty and the Constitution and retake the high ground in defense of our most beloved freedoms in America, welcome ALL who share those views, and purge the party of the sellouts.

Remember that Ronald Reagan said "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." That philosophy appeals to younger people especially, and I think it's great that Ron Paul brought in so many young, talented people to the Republican Party to refresh the ranks.

Posted by Saoirse_Lass on 2015-11-13 18:23:22

Policies like unpaid for troops over seas, large government spending and extremely low federal reserve interest rates? Hmmm there's another guy I'm trying to think of besides Bush who's had policies like that. Crap I can't remember his name. I think it starts with an O. The difference between you and me is I call out both parties for dangerous economic policies.

You just repeat narratives. The Knockout game is real. What you envision is not.

Posted by DaveHolden on 2015-11-13 15:59:41

They are on on video doing so. It is irrefutable.

Posted by DaveHolden on 2015-11-13 15:58:56

"We both live in the same country and needlessly strict voting requirements do not help."

They aren't needless - we need them. That is the opposite of needless.We should have prudent voting restrictions. Do you have your neighbor changing your pizza order? The notion of people with a stake being the only ones to vote is intuitive so why in this one, very important, area do we have people with conflicts of interest and greed able to skew everything? How can someone on welfare be allowed to vote themselves MORE of their neighbor's money?

"There's a history of disenfranchisement in this country..."No, there is a history of expanding the vote which is what has caused the crisis we are in. Tens of TRILLIONS in debt.

Posted by DaveHolden on 2015-11-13 15:57:06

You mean like the one Democrats have implemented against all republican obstruction to bring the nation back from the economic disaster that Republican policies put us in in 2007-2009?

Posted by SecludedCompound on 2015-11-13 14:58:24

Go back to Stormfront, fascist.

Posted by SecludedCompound on 2015-11-13 14:57:25

Good thing he's helping elect proto-fascists that make the right look terrible to the wider nation. winning a few battles and losing the war while proudly thumping their chests is exactly how I like to see Republicans behaving: too stupid to know they're stupid.

Posted by SecludedCompound on 2015-11-13 14:57:03

They should have if that actually happened; the thing is, it didn't.

You're just so stupid that when people tell you thing, you believe them no matter how often they've blown smoke up your posterior in the past.

You're a gullible rube. Go away.

Posted by SecludedCompound on 2015-11-13 14:55:29

That is, actually, what is true: there is no evidence of any sort of statistically significant voter fraud, and in fact, where it has been found, it has been instigated largely by republicans trying to prove that there is voter fraud.

Using this as a predicate to discourage voting in Democratic-friendly demographics is beyond stupid, it's ethically abhorrent, so, basically business as usual for the white supremacist conservative Republican crowd.

Posted by SecludedCompound on 2015-11-13 14:54:17

"yes, we live in a republic, not a democracy"

Gotta love these stupid people pretending to be smart. Obviously, we live in a republic that is also a representative democracy.

That this intellectual lightweight falls prey so easily to such a stupid Birchite trope is pretty indicative of the depth of his though process.

Posted by SecludedCompound on 2015-11-13 14:51:40

I'm sorry, but voting fraud is not a real thing.

Minorities traditionally do not have very high turnout rates, and when people talk about ID requirements to prevent "voting fraud", they are really just trying to make sure that minorities continue to under-vote.

I mean, what do you think about Alabama enacting a requirement to show ID, and then closing 31 DMVs in black counties? Doesn't that sound maybe a teensy bit like deliberate disenfranchisement?

Posted by Scott Lindsey on 2015-11-13 14:39:35

Satan's spawn

Posted by Matthew 6:5 on 2015-11-13 14:24:28

So, not thinking it's ok for police to kill unarmed black men and children equals hating whites? Strange world you live in.

Posted by rwmsrobertw on 2015-11-13 14:12:07

See all this "you progressives" identity warfare bs isn't going to help. We both live in the same country and needlessly strict voting requirements do not help. There's a history of disenfranchisement in this country if you didn't know, while there's no history of mass voter fraud OF ANY KIND in the US. So no, there's no "parroting" going on here just facts that's some folks, including yourself, find inconvenient.

Posted by @Androsity101 on 2015-11-13 10:59:31

We need economic nationalism, not capitalism.

Posted by DaveHolden on 2015-11-13 09:54:27

Scratch a progressive, find a fascist who hates Whites. See BLM and University of Missouri, Yale, etc....

Posted by DaveHolden on 2015-11-13 09:53:26

"The thing is voter fraud does not occur at any statically significant degree."

That is what you are told to parrot. But it would be like the police stop giving speeding tickets and then claim that is proof there is no speeding. By design you progressives WANT fraud (speaks volumes about the integrity of your side) so you work to prevent measures to detect it....like showing ID.

Posted by DaveHolden on 2015-11-13 09:51:57

Should the Black Panthers have been prosecuted for intimidating Whites at polling places?

Posted by DaveHolden on 2015-11-13 09:49:45

Dang a lot of people in the comment section hate freedom, a sane economic policy and a sane foreign policy.

Posted by Ron Paul on 2015-11-12 22:30:01

Too bad we can't use Hitler's methods against the right.

Posted by acme on 2015-11-12 19:13:39

I do agree with him on that main point though, that Catholic institutions should not be required to perform abortions, any more than they should be required to perform brain surgery if that's not something they offer. Same as anti-gay bakers shouldn't be required to make gay wedding cakes. Who would want a wedding cake made by someone who hates you who was forced to make it anyway? I wouldn't eat it.

Posted by acme on 2015-11-12 19:12:35

Such indoctrination at such a young age. He will be very destructive for years to come.

Posted by LaProgressive on 2015-11-12 16:38:33

The thing is voter fraud does not occur at any statically significant degree. Why the need for any documentation at all for voting other than to disenfranchised voters. Name and address please!

Posted by @Androsity101 on 2015-11-12 15:44:47

Werrell's statement that the biggest challenge to his party is to "rid itself of the neoconservative war hawks and corrupt cronyists that make up the establishment" could be applied equally to Ds as to Rs. There are actually a lot of ways that we lefties could work with actual libertarians (as opposed to ignorant teabillies) to accomplish a lot of common goals, if only the vanquishing of our common enemies. Wonder if that will ever happen.

Posted by chedd on 2015-11-12 13:27:37

no one is disenfranchizing minority voters - How are you claiming that is happening. You need ID for everything - you should have it for voting - mexico does. other countries do. It's not too expensive as LIBERALS decry... perhaps you should state how republicans are making these things happen you did not do so.

Posted by Deejay Munkee on 2015-11-12 12:14:12

Godspeed the day capitalist ideology is seen for what it is: a crime worthy of death. I already regard it as morally wrong to value the opinions, property or lives of any member of the Republican party and believe that war against American capitalism is a moral imperative.

Posted by Copper Stewart on 2015-11-12 12:02:11

Truly scary, the conviction of the rightness of the cause.

Posted by Josiane Ochman on 2015-11-12 11:25:22

* I've advised using Alinsky's Rule for Radicals against the left.* Check out this young buck who's taking on RINOs!* He has specific ideas of the tactics to win elections!

* You should read this then share to your Facebook wall/friends!

Posted by jfslenes on 2015-11-12 10:31:35

"Remember, religious freedom created America, not the other way around." Just 100% wrong. People may have come for religious freedom, but it wasn't the reason for the revolution.

Posted by TheNate on 2015-11-12 07:38:28

Ginger .. It just had to be a ginger ..

Posted by kmuzu on 2015-11-11 18:13:53

Scratch a libertarian, find a fascist who likes smoking pot.

Posted by Mike Francis on 2015-11-11 16:51:57

The basic problem that libertarians don't appear to acknowledge in their public, political statements (I can't speak of philosophical treatises, as I am not so familiar with that body of work) is how localism/decentralized authority is going to protect the inalienable rights of individuals from crude majoritarianism. In concrete terms, this means things like transparent attempts by Republican-controlled state legislatures to disenfranchise minority voters. Some, though of course not all, of our federal agencies function as a counterbalance to such pernicious localism. Federal business regulations exist to protect citizens' rights to health and safety and basic human work and living standards against the otherwise unbound capacity of large corporations to trample those rights through their oligopolistic control of the economy and their use of campaign donations to dominate state legislatures. When libertarians don't offer explanations for how the rights of minorities and workers are going to be protected without the intervention of federal agencies, they come off looking callous and, at worst, racist. It also seems highly hypocritical to cavil about the destruction of civic institutions like churches, families, etc., while simultaneously supporting the destruction of unions--literally the only category of civic institution that advocates for the economic well-being of everyday people against corporate power. Until these weaknesses are ferreted out and dealt with, libertarianism will never expand its appeal enough to win a national election, notwithstanding admirable tendencies in the foreign and military policy realm.